I don't think that ER is only a matter of intellectual understanding. There's
some unexplainable mysticism about it, a personal experience and the
difficulty of mediating this personal experience (and a personal experience
means not only someone's brain activity). Language is a problem insofar
language is inadequate to express really important, striking personal
experience. I think ER has something to do with N.'s whole life, the moment
of conception like a focus of his whole life, the summon up and concentrated
essence of his life. For this reason it is not a mere philosophical
hypothesis like other hypotheses in his work, it seems to me a judgement for
or against the sense of his whole life, not only his work, but his acts from
childhood to death. It is for vain to discuss with someone desperate his
argumentation he is convinced to be a justification and a deep comfort for
his unlucky, unsuccessful life. Perhaps such unlucky are able to get an
easier, true access to his work and the ER, but I doubt they will study
philosophy successfully and write books about N. in a fine edition. (Yeah, it
is even not neccessary for them to be well bred and educated and man of
science; N. himself wasn't able to stand his prof. life on University). To
play with the thought of the best interpreter can give crucial clues for an
interpretation perhaps new and astonishing.
-Litok
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: forta@superonline.com (Hulki Fort)
Sender: owner-nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Reply-to: nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
To: nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date: 97-08-09 06:35:43 EDT
I think the idea of ER contradicts Nietzsche's other theories such as will
to power and his vision of superman.
In one of his works, N tries to prove ER by using physics. He writes that
the
matter in the universe will form the same patterns again and
again forever, because the number of combinations is finite; if the
universe is a deterministic closed system and time is infinite, all
possible
combinations must occur not for once but for an infinite number of times.
It is apparent that his view of the universe is a Newtonian one. (He, of
course, knows nothing about the Big Bang theory or quantum mechanics.
Thinking about it, these are still theories and maybe he is right after
all.)
Original Newtonian thinkers (Deterministic Materialists, as they are called
sometimes) such as Laplace theorize that if they knew the whole data
concerning the positions and speeds of all bodies in the universe in a
given moment, they could calculate the outlook of the universe in any
moment in the future or in the past. This means that the future and the
past are fixed patterns and events could occur only in one way. In other
words and aspects this means that there is nothing such as free will, let
alone
will to power. Consciousness is just atoms bumping together, something
happens because it had to happen, things couldn't be any other way. If one
accepts N's proof for ER than he must also accept Laplace's (who was a much
better physicist then N) proof for deterministic materialism (DM).
As easily seen, DM leads one into a most perfect nihilism, which is even
worse than Schopenhauer's philosophy, on the grounds that N attacks him.
For a better discussion, please consider;
1. I am not a native speaker of English, and my native language (Turkish)
does not even remotely resemble it. Naturally, Turkish does not resemble
German, too. (Think about translations.)
2. Philosophy is one of my hobbies. I have read TSZ, BGE and EH in Turkish.
I have also read some articles on N and his works in both Turkish and
English.
As a result, when you use philosopers' terminology abundantly and uncommon
vocabulary too often, I just do not understand what you mean.
Good day,
N. Gizem Forta
"I found the missing link between the animal and the civilized man; that's
us."
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---